Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:14:20 +0100
From: Victor Julien <>
Subject: Re: CVE request: denial of service in suricata

On 12/12/2014 02:10 PM, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
> So, here to have an attack possible, it would require to send gzipped
> traffic (as expressed in the bug report) and to "hope" that zlib somehow
> fails in the process (due to low memory situation or to old zlib) with
> Z_STREAM_ERROR, so that we have cascade with a NULL pointer being
> propagated so that there's a segfault?
> Or am I wrong with my scenario?

No, I think this could be an attack vector indeed. Technically I think
this was an issue in libhtp and not suricata btw. Not sure if that
matters much, suri is the main user to libhtp as far as I know.


> On 12/12/2014 02:02 PM, Victor Julien wrote:
>> On 12/12/2014 01:56 PM, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
>>> It appears, looking at bug #1272 [1] in Suricata, that it was
>>> possible to crash Suricata with specific packets due to a bug in
>>> the libhtp (which got fixed with libhtp 0.5.16).
>>> It got fixed with the release 2.0.5 from Suricata.
>>> Was a CVE already assigned to this issue? Otherwise can a CVE be
>>> assigned?
>>> With my best regards,
>>> [1]:
>> To our knowledge this couldn't be triggered by specific traffic
>> conditions. Rather it seemed to be an issue when:
>> - older zlib versions were used that didn't always setup properly for
>> a reason unknown to us
>> OR
>> - extreme memory pressure (malloc's failing)
>> Cheers,
>> Victor

Victor Julien

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.